Posted on 10/25/2023 11:46:55 AM PDT by Red Badger
He should release ALL J6 footage before nightfall.
Isn't it? :)
Demons scream when light appears.
C'mon. This type of change takes a little time. He has to settle into the roll.
He should release ALL J6 footage before the end of the month nightfall.
That would be good enough for me.
https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1717206563138441452
@DC_Draino
Remember when Mike Johnson called for Pelosi to be arrested?
The FBI raided Trump’s house for some documents, but Pelosi rips up official archive docs & nothing happens
Happy to support
@RepMikeJohnson
for Speaker if he’s bringing this type of heat
There is only one metric.
Refuse all CRs that bundle Ukraine money. Period.
Part of that can be not to let any Ukraine money legislation reach the floor of the House unless there is overwhelming conference support.
That’s it. It’s a simple procedure.
SHARE AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN A HELL OF A LOT WORSE!
The wisdom of the congress critter herd?
Seems like he may be a good choice.
It is maybe a case of the RINOS only voted for him because they are all fed up with this process and wanted it over.
The RINOS all admitted it, they only voted against Jordan to “punish” Gaetz and the rebels
If that's true then I'm behind him 100%
He should arrange "confidential" meetings with lobbyists & have James O'Keefe record all of them so people can see just how corrupt the system really is.
That’s a good plan!
The fight was well worth it. 🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂
Despite rino posturing about not being told what to do by constituents, they obviously caved, and voted for this guy to avoid being primaried. Hopefully, they’ll be primaried, anyway.
Has he voted generally to the left or to the right of McCarthy?
"The brief claimed that the officials and courts in each of the battleground states unconstitutionally usurped the power granted to state legislators by changing election rules in 2020. The Supreme Court rejected the request, saying it lacked legal standing [??? emphasis added]."
Constitutional problems (imo) with the Supreme Court's argument of no legal standing concerning allegations of problems with 2020 elections include the following.
Just as with Pence and the J6 Congress, the Court seemingly likewise ignored problems with both state compliance with 12th Amendment (electoral vote rules), also allegations of problems with state compliance with the 14th Amendment's Section 2, that section a penalty for states where ballot box fraud has occurred.
Excerpted from 12A:
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate [emphasis added], ..."
Excerpted from 14A:
"Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged [emphases added], except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." [Section 2: Apportionment of Representatives]
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Regarding 12A, Pence and Congress possibly felt pressured to accept Biden's alleged stolen electoral votes ASAP (déjà vu Pelosi ramming unconstitutional Obamacare imo) to prevent further public scrutiny of that amendment because the political party-pirated state governments have not been complying with that amendment for a long time imo.
For example, the states surrendered their power to make so-called state "winner take all" laws for electoral votes when they ratified that amendment imo.
In fact, despite desperate Democratic hypocritical "all votes count" mantra, Justice Joseph Story had explained that when political parties divide a state's electoral votes, doing so weakens a state's electoral votes for each candidate, similarly to when a state's federal senators vote yes and no on an issue, effectively cancelling each other's votes.
"In case of any party divisions in a state, it may neutralize its whole vote [emphasis added], while all the other states give an unbroken electoral vote." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833."
Regarding the Section 2 of 14A penalty concerning vote-counting fraud, consider the zero tolerance wording of that clause that screams for the feds to investigate allegations of vote-counting fraud.
"is denied to any"
"or in any way abridged,"
Consider that ballot box tampering effectively weakens the constitutionally enumerated voting power of qualified citizen voters imo.
In fact, if this were a better world, the federal government should be warning the states before every election that the feds will be darkening their doorway to investigate complaints about vote-counting problems.
Getting back to the Supreme Court arguing no standing regarding state v. state alleged election problems, consider the Constitution's Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 (3.2.1) which constitutionally enumerates that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in state v. state cases.
"Article III, Section 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States [emphasis added];--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)-- between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Regarding 3.2.1, Justice Joseph Story had indicated that the original colonies had given the power to hear disagreements disagreements between the colonies to the confederate government to ultimately help prevent the disagreement from escalating to the collapsing of that government.
But most importantly, Story had noted that the states had inherited through 3.2.1 the power for state v. state cases to be heard by the Supreme Court for any reason whatsoever [emphasis added] (my words), the Court's argument of no standing regarding allegations of election arguably wrongly ignoring the intentions of the drafters of the Constitution for 3.2.1 imo.
"§ 1674. Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [emphasis added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution.§ 1675. Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time [emphasis added]. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, 1833.
The bottom line imo is that the misguided Supreme Court wrongly pulled the "no standing" card when it decided not to hear allegations of ballot box fraud concerning the 2020 elections.
All that being said, Democratic and Republican Trump-supporters are reminded that the next major political event in the U.S. is not reelecting hopeful Trump 47 for a second time, but when Trump-supporting patriots primary ALL state and federal lawmakers and executives in 2024 primaries, except for MTG, Gaetz & Company, Jordan (and others?).
After all, lawmakers and executives continue to show that they do not have the patriotism and leadership skills necessary to find legislative support for effective remedies for unconstitutional government policies.
Trump can endorse candidates from lists that patriots who respect the federal government's constitutionally limited powers provide for him, as long as candidates are not incumbents, candidates also promising to repeal the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments (16&17A) after they win office.
Consider the repealing of 16&17A as reparations for taxpayers for having to pay unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that Congress cannot reasonably justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers and a few other constitutionally enumerated expenses.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“If the tax be not proposed for the common defence, or general welfare, but for other objects, wholly extraneous, (as for instance, for propagating Mahometanism among the Turks, or giving aids and subsidies to a foreign nation, to build palaces for its kings, or erect monuments to its heroes,) it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles [emphases added].” — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2 (1833).
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
The definition of insanity is reelecting your beloved career state and federal lawmakers and executives over and over again, expecting those same politicians to find remedies for unconstitutional government policies every time.
Patriots, let's not allow ourselves to be fooled for third time in 2024 by the corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties that have pirated control of state and federal governments.
Finally, as a side note to this post, consider that probably the main reason that we hear media complaints about the electoral college is the following.
The electoral college is now the only thing stopping the corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties that have pirated control of state and federal governments from permanently establishing a puppet presidency that will unquestioningly sign unconstitutional taxing and spending bills into law.
I've got a 12 year old Scotch that will second your sentiments.
It is terrible to go "nahnahnah' but I can not help myself.
Have fun with the Scotch.
I am a teetotaler myself. Part of why I’m not happy.
I like his sense of humor and wit. Using Sheila JL today in his speech was timely. Wish I coulda seen her face.
This will change everything, we are really winning now!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.